B: 29th Sun of OrdTime (21 Oct 2018) - THE DANGER OF DICHOTOMIZING - Mk 10:35-45

“Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” (Mk 10:38)

This verse is rendered in the Latin Vulgate as “potestis bibere calicem quem ego bibo,” using the word “calix” for the original Greek “potērion”. The unusual use of “calix” snowballed into the dichotomization of the current English words “chalice” and “cup”, where the former is equated to the more lavished and ornamented gold vessel used in sacred ceremonies as opposed to the latter which is an ordinary drinking cup.

In effect, an emphasis on the difference between the two motivated liturgists to alter the transubstantiation formula in the Mass from “Take this, all of you, and drink from it, this is the cup of my blood” (cf. old Roman Missal of 1970) to “Take this, all of you, and drink from it, for this is the chalice of my Blood” (cf. new Roman Missal of 2010). Liturgists argue that the word “chalice” gives sacred character to the vessel containing the very Blood of Christ which is missing in the word “cup.”

Indeed, we do not discount the sentimental and symbolic value of polarizing the two words where chalice is sacred while the cup is profane. But, if the Greek texts of the NT are examined, it can be concluded that there is no distinction between the two as the word “potērion” is applied for everything… from the drinking bowl of Jesus and the apostles (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:25) to the symbolic cup of the Father (e.g., Mk. 14:36, Jn. 18:11), and from the one for the poor (eg., Mt. 10:42) to the vessel used by Pharisees (e.g., Lk. 11:39). Henceforth, “potērion” can be as ordinary as the one used in Jewish meals, yet it can be so special as the one used in rituals and in spiritual language. The new Roman Missal favors the use of “chalice” over “cup”, but surprisingly still uses the word “Cup”—albeit in capital letter—in one of the memorial acclamations: “When we eat this Bread and drink this Cup…”

The debate on the divide between the two words necessitates much unpacking. But the dichotomy exposed has much implications in our day-to-day lives where we tend to separate the sacred from the profane: the clergy is pedestalled over the laity, the physical building of the church is highly segregated from the filthy environment of the streets, and eucharistic celebrations are corralled by volunteer pietists safeguarding them from nuisance intruders.

This mentality also presupposes that the Church cannot meddle in political issues, as it is vice-versa. However, the questions we Filipinos should ask: Does a dichotomy always have to take effect? How can a genuine dialogue occur if discussions are limited to those belonging to a singular turf? How can true communion happen if leaders are detached from their constituents? How can a community progress if only one stance prevails while the others are marginalized?

This is probably the reason why Jesus in our gospel reprimanded the apostles for quarrelling who is the greatest among them (cf. Mk 10:37, 41). They seem to dichotomize leadership and service. But Jesus emphasized that he, being a true leader, will not be rendered service to, but will in fact suffer for the many (vv. 42-45) in fulfillment of the Suffering Messiah prophesied in the First Reading (Isa 53:10-11).

As we select new leaders in a few months’ time, let us take inspiration from the words of the Second Reading: “For it is not as if we had a high priest who was incapable of feeling our weaknesses with us; but we have one who has been tempted in every way that we are, though he is without sin.” (Heb 4:15).

- Rex Fortes, CM